Wittgenstein and Nietzsche own the Razor while Ockham doesn't!

Ockham definitely applies to concepts, dear Yucong Duan !

Semantics is about the evolutionary (archetypal) patterns of us humans as represented by our nervous system, especially our memory system.

—————————————————————

“ Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary. ”

William of Ockham

————-—

I myself found a fascinating example of this in Nietzsche’s book Thus Spake Zarathustra, where the author reproduces almost word for word an incident reported in a ship’s log for the year 1686. By sheer chance I had read this seaman’s yarn in a book published about 1835 (half a century before Nietzsche wrote); and when I found the similar passage in Thus Spake Zarathustra, I was struck by its peculiar style, which was different from Nietzsche’s usual language. I was convinced that Nietzsche must also have seen the old book, though he made no reference to it. I wrote to his sister, who was still alive, and she confirmed that she and her brother had in fact read the book together when he was 11 years old. I think, from the context, it is inconceivable that Nietzsche had any idea that he was plagiarizing this story. I believe that fifty years later it has unexpectedly slipped into focus in his conscious mind.” ― C.G. Jung, Man and His Symbols

——————————————————

Best: stephen

“ Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary. ”

William of Ockham

I think that it is much easier to be selfconvienced the understanding of the razor of W. Ockham than really understanding the meaning of it. I am not really sure that W. Ockham understood the impact of his sentence since there is no obvious deep evidence to show the depth of his understanding of it. But Wittgenstein actually showed his effort in subjective formal expression direction much more deserved than the others. Nietzsche is in another direction of formal clear which is ultimate subjective. By Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are equally clear in the sense of cognitively accessability through purifying or simplicifying the conversions between so-called subjective and objective.

Dear Stephen, I would prefer to listen to you than be referred to the original words of the Famous. I don't think that anyone who can't show the formalized expression can contribute in enlightening audiences in gaining more formalized understanding.

I would like to propose that we reduce the essential expressions to DIKWP elements and the DIKWP relationships following Razor of Ockham and seem what is left and what is reached. Just keep cautions about the difference of Semantics and Concepts. But correction and modification will make the work not difficult to start.

I don't favor C.G. Jung's analysis of the identified clues of Nietzsche’s book Thus Spake Zarathustra, and others finding of the clues of Albert Einstein. Its meaning is positive in attributing contributions but who really cares that much about the persons of the famous? Most of us cares only the condensed meaning which is determined increasingly by its formalness/accessability.

""

Life is short and we need to omit the chaos and make mistakes if necessary to be quick.

Sincerely,

Yucong Duan